Appeals Panel Should Reinstate Stay on Prop 8 Ruling

Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to lift the stay on his ruling striking down California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 is, fortunately, not the last word on whether same-sex couples in the Golden State will be able to obtain marriage licenses while this case is under appeal. The appropriate panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has until August 18 to act on the request by attorneys defending this state constitutional amendment for a stay pending the conclusion of the Prop 8 appeal.

In the interest of clarity and certainty about the law, the panel should promptly grant the defendants’ emergency request and keep current law in effect. Commentators on both sides of the policy debate over same-sex unions recognize the immense social impact Judge Walker’s ruling will have and the extraordinary degree of judicial activism it represents. There are powerful bases both for granting the stay and keeping this issue in the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

Charles A. "Chuck" Donovan is the president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. He served as legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee more than three decades ago, worked as a writer for President Reagan, helped to lead the Family Research Council for nearly two decades and most recently has been senior research fellow in Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

When more than 48% of the California electorate voted in favor of same-sex marriage, it is not at all accurate to claim that this judge, with a very conservative record, acted with "extraordinary activism". In fact many polls are now showing majorities favoring same-sex marriage.

@Bobbie. Yes lets use our power of the majority to attempt to overule the constitution that we selectively quote and bigot about so that we can reduce the rights of a minority that we don't like because a 2000 year old book written by sheep herders told us it was wrong.

"Just create a legal entity with all the rights and priveleges that attain to marriage but call it by some other name." They already have that. It's called civil unions. They are not happy with that, however, because it does not advance their agenda of degrading the culture even further. Look at what the liberal/progressive social "advances" have done to black families over the past 50 years. Marriage is so disrespected in Holland, where same-sex marriage has been legal for years, that most children are born out of wedlock. In this country, that is the single greatest cause of childhood poverty.

Have you even read the ruling? It's obvious you don't like the bottom line of the ruling, but I wonder if you even have any idea that the defense put on no appreciable defense. They don't have one. And they have no standing to appeal, either. You can't change the rules just because you don't like what the judge decided.

Mr. Dalton is on the right track with his comments. Too many people are confusing the secular, legal contract issue of marriage with the sacraments of their particular beliefs. The Judge in this case has done a very good job of stating why gays should not be denied the secular, legal contracts honored by the State. Most of the Prop-8 supporters have no justified grounds for opposition once the religious sacraments are removed from the picture.

I agree with Ted Olsen, that true conservatives should see that this case is all about liberty and equality. I think all conservatives will agree that the state has no business in determining who these people choose for their life's partner in their 'pursuit of happiness'

Do we really expect to be saved by the Black Robbed Dictators, who think that they can disavow the democratic wishes of the state and the historical values of the nation, and do what ever they want to do because they have a job for life. This situation has to be changed where we are not dictated to by unelected bureaucrats in black robes who can not be challenged and can not be fired. How did we get to this situation? We must change the Constitution and at least require all Federal judges to submit to a vote of confidence of the people, and if they don't get 50% of the vote, they are out and the President appoints someone else.

wsv1975's comment shows everything that is wrong with today's so-called "conservatives". Let's overthrow the two-hundred and twenty-one years of constitutional precedence that have made this nation a beacon of rational government in an often troubled world so that we can continue to discriminate against a group of people we don't like.

So people can just butt into the definitions of any words to distort the way they want it to be? Like the origination of Allah, a man-made god, suited for the weaknesses and intolerances of man, but men who follow distort it to others to believe Allah is otherwise?

So people can just butt into the definitions of any words to distort the way they want it to be? Like the origination of Allah, a man-made god, suited for the weaknesses and intolerances of man, but men who follow, distort it to others to believe Allah is otherwise?

I do hope that, "lack of standing notwithstanding", the 9th circuit will accept the appeal, so its' decision will have wider effect and also to keep the Religious Reich occupied. My dread is that next they will enforce Leviticus 21:18 which forbids the lame, blind and crippled from approaching God's altar. After all, I've never known a Christian to pass up a biblical verse he can use to denegrate another segment of society!

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.